I appreciate (and share) John's concern that calling the Fort Hood shootings terrorism
arouses fears of a Jihadist conspiracy in our midst that may not exist, or that may be containable by the same means we are presently using.
But that's ultimately why I think it's not a good idea to shy away from using the word terrorism. I agree that the definitive piece of evidence that Nidal Hassan was, in fact, committing a terrorist act would be his own admission that he was doing so (and that may yet be forthcoming now that he's reportedly awake and able to talk). But, with so much other evidence out there about Hassan's increasingly radical political and religious views, I think it's looking increasingly unlikely that his actions weren't motivated, at least in part, by those beliefs. After all, he didn't shoot up a 7-11; he went on a shooting rampage on an Army base. The symbolic statement made by killing soldiers on an American millitary base is certainly consistent with other statements (both oral and written) Hassan had made in recent months about the injustice of America's wars and the justice of suicide bombings and what not. Given that consistency, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to conclude these things are related. Just like it wasn't a leap for the press to immediately (and correctly) conclude that Scott Hoeder killed George Tiller because Hoeder, based on his previous oral and written statements, held extremist views on abortion.
John thinks "we need to know a little more than we do." And that's a sentiment I would usually share. But this time, the debate over Fort Hood is moving so quickly and some of the loudest voices involved in that debate are saying such hyperbolic and vile things that I think to deny what common sense suggests is to give these voices the upper hand in the debate.
I, for one, don't think Fort Hood suggests there's Jihadist conspiracy in our midst or that, short of maybe getting the Army to do a better job of evaluating the mental health of its soldiers, there's much that should--or even can--be done to prevent other incidents like this. (That is, assuming Hassan acted alone in the belief he was acting on behalf of some larger movement or ideology, which is what, barring any evidence of links to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, appears to be the most likely case.) And I think it's important that people start making these points, in order to push back against the unfair, irresponsible, and ultimately counterproductive things some people are saying should be done in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings. But if, in making these points, you continue to deny what, to most fair-minded people, would seem to be an increasingly likely fact, then those fair-minded people are going to discount everything else you say; and Malkin et al will sound more convincing than they are, if only because they're acknowledging what's becoming fairly apparent.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (4)
But if, in making these points, you continue to deny what, to most fair-minded people, would seem to be an increasingly likely fact, then those fair-minded people are going to discount everything else you say; and Malkin et al will sound more convincing than they are, if only because they're acknowledging what's becoming fairly apparent.
Actually, it strikes me that the Malkins of the world will gain more credibility if they can put it out that eventheliberalnewrepublic agrees that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. Thus far it appears that Hassan's assault was "terrorist" in the same sense that Lee Harvey Oswald's was "communist"; maybe in some sense, but harping on it generat ... view full comment
But if, in making these points, you continue to deny what, to most fair-minded people, would seem to be an increasingly likely fact, then those fair-minded people are going to discount everything else you say; and Malkin et al will sound more convincing than they are, if only because they're acknowledging what's becoming fairly apparent.
Actually, it strikes me that the Malkins of the world will gain more credibility if they can put it out that eventheliberalnewrepublic agrees that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. Thus far it appears that Hassan's assault was "terrorist" in the same sense that Lee Harvey Oswald's was "communist"; maybe in some sense, but harping on it generates heat, not light. I hope that's not the point here, but you do realize that TNR has that rep.
Let's assume for a moment that Hassan intended his shooting to be an act of jihad, a blow against the crusader infidels on behalf of the global umma. Even granting this, the shooting would not qualify as an act of "terrorism." The attack took place on a military installation, where the victims could reasonably have been expected to be mainly uniformed military personnel and civilians acting as agents of the uniformed armed forces.
Which is to say, "legitimate military targets." It's not terrorism to kill enemy soldiers, nor to attack an enemy military installation. That's war. So even granting Jason's assumptions regarding Hassan's motivations, at best Hassan is a guerilla or a war cr ... view full comment
Let's assume for a moment that Hassan intended his shooting to be an act of jihad, a blow against the crusader infidels on behalf of the global umma. Even granting this, the shooting would not qualify as an act of "terrorism." The attack took place on a military installation, where the victims could reasonably have been expected to be mainly uniformed military personnel and civilians acting as agents of the uniformed armed forces.
Which is to say, "legitimate military targets." It's not terrorism to kill enemy soldiers, nor to attack an enemy military installation. That's war. So even granting Jason's assumptions regarding Hassan's motivations, at best Hassan is a guerilla or a war criminal, not a terrorist. Assuming, that is, that we care about the precise use and meaning of words.
I haven't thought about it too deeply, but I'm skeptical that al Qaeda and friends can be described as having legitimate targets. If we assume that they can, though, wouldn't that make Hassan more of a spy or saboteur than a guerrilla? And what law(s) of war did he violate?
[Those aren't rhetorical questions; I don't know much about this stuff and I'm curious about these terms and their definitions.]
I haven't thought about it too deeply, but I'm skeptical that al Qaeda and friends can be described as having legitimate targets. If we assume that they can, though, wouldn't that make Hassan more of a spy or saboteur than a guerrilla? And what law(s) of war did he violate?
[Those aren't rhetorical questions; I don't know much about this stuff and I'm curious about these terms and their definitions.]
I think it's useful to regard terrorism as an organized set of violent actions committed by apparent civilians against other civilians for a political purpose. The term starts to lose meaning when it is applied too loosely. Hasan may have been part of an organized plot or may have been acting completely on his own. His motives may have been purely personal, reacting not so much in sympathy with a cause, but in response to anti-Muslim attitudes among his colleagues. His agenda may have been self-expression, rather than any attempt to end the war(s). Nobody knows yet. Maybe it was an act of terrorism - maybe there are co-conspirators even now planning to shoot up Army bases and other tar ... view full comment
I think it's useful to regard terrorism as an organized set of violent actions committed by apparent civilians against other civilians for a political purpose. The term starts to lose meaning when it is applied too loosely. Hasan may have been part of an organized plot or may have been acting completely on his own. His motives may have been purely personal, reacting not so much in sympathy with a cause, but in response to anti-Muslim attitudes among his colleagues. His agenda may have been self-expression, rather than any attempt to end the war(s). Nobody knows yet. Maybe it was an act of terrorism - maybe there are co-conspirators even now planning to shoot up Army bases and other targets. Maybe Hasan is one of a sizable fifth column of Al Qaeda operatives in uniform. Such speculation is hardly worthwhile; let the investigation tell us these things. Meanwhile, there is some value in being clear about what is known and not known. Using language carefully might be helpful in achieving that clarity.
Neil